Evaluation of a Community-Based Exercise Program for Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise is important during treatment for breast cancer to alleviate the usual declines in physical and emotional health and overall health-related quality of life (HRQL). OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and enjoyment of a community exercise program for breast cancer patients who were currently undergoing or within 3 months of completing chemotherapy or radiation treatment. METHODS: Breast cancer patients Engaging in Activity while Undergoing Treatment (BEAUTY) is a 12-week program of resistance, aerobic, and flexibility exercise. Participants completed pre and post fitness assessments, and questionnaires to measure HRQL, fatigue, cognitive function, and depressive symptoms. Participants had access to group exercise classes and were provided a home-based exercise program. RESULTS: Participants (n = 80) were middle aged (mean age, 50.3 [SD, 9.0] years), and the majority were diagnosed with stage II breast cancer (53.8%). From baseline to 12 weeks, resting heart rate (mean [INCREMENT], +4.15 beats/min) and body mass index increased slightly (mean [INCREMENT], +0.47 kg/m). No clinically significant changes in HRQL or other psychosocial questionnaires, but social well-being decreased (t77 = 3.83, P = .000) slightly, and emotional well-being improved (t77 = -2.15, P = .034). Participants attended an average of 7.5 (SD, 6.5) classes; feedback about the program was positive, and no exercise-related injuries were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The BEAUTY program was feasible and effective in managing chemotherapy and radiation treatment-related declines in physical fitness and HRQL. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study supports the need to integrate exercise programming as part of treatment plans for breast cancer patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".